|
Studying the relation
of quality work life with socio-economic status
and general health among the employees of Tehran
University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) in 2015
Hossein Dargahi (1)
Samereh Yaghobian (2)
Seyedeh Hoda Mousavi (3)
Majid Shekari Darbandi (3)
Soheil Mokhtari (4)
Mohsen Mohammadi (3)
Seyede Fateme Hosseini (5)
(1) Health Information Management Research
Center, Tehran, Iran
(2) Msc of Health Services Management, Hekmat
Hospital, Mazandaran Social Security Organization,
Mazandaran, Iran
(3) Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University
of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
(4) B.Sc. Student, Health Management and Economics
Research Center, Iran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(5) MSc. Student, Student Research Committee,
School of public Health, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence:
Seyede Fateme Hosseini
Student Research Committee,
School of public Health,
Tehran University of Medical Sciences,
Tehran, Iran
|
Abstract
Introduction: The
importance of socio-economic variables
such as level of literacy, income and
occupational status and their impact on
the physical and psychological wellbeing
of the people is clear for experts and
policymakers. In much research, the root
of increase in life expectancy and improvement
in other indexes of health is considered
to not only progress in medicine, but
also improve in socio-economic indexes.
Thus, the present study aims to determine
the relation between socio-economic status
and general health and the consequences
of disease on the quality of work life
of the employees of Tehran University
of Medical Sciences (TUMS).
Methodology:
The
present cross-sectional research is of
descriptive-analytical type, and was conducted
in faculties of TUMS in 2015, and the
population under study included all the
1,238 non-academic employees of the TUMS.
The required data was collected by the
Quality of Work life (QWL) questionnaire.
This questionnaire was based on Walton
components and Socio-economic Status (SES)
questionnaire, and was designed in order
to evaluate socio-economic status and
has 4 components. The data on general
health was collected by Goldberg and Hillier
28-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28)
(1979) that has 4 subscales. Then, the
collected data was recorded by SPSS version
18 software and was then analyzed by common
methods of descriptive-analytical statistics.
Results:
The
results demonstrated that the frequency
of socio-economic status of the employees
under study were 179 persons (53.3 percent)
for low level, 109 persons (35.5 percent)
for moderate level, and 19 persons(6.2
percent) for high level, and the frequency
of the quality of work life of the employees
under study were 10 persons (3.3 percent)
for low level, 108 persons (35.6 percent)
for moderate level, and 185 persons (61.1
percent) for high level.
Conclusion:
Considering the importance of quality
of work life in socio-economic status,
it is proposed that the following measures
be taken into account: appropriateness
of salary to economic factors such as
inflation; demand and supply in fair and
adequate payment; paying more attention
to the physical conditions of workplace,
e.g. light, cooling and heating facilities
to prepare a secure and healthy workplace;
preparing some possibilities for the employees
so that they can further develop their
personal talents and have opportunities
for making progress in their specialized
field by encouraging them to be creative
and innovative to lead them to promotion
in the organization; and providing continuous
security and growth opportunities for
the employees, allowing them to take initiatives,
and provide them with any information
or skill that they need in workplace to
develop their human capabilities. In the
present study no significant relationship
between the quality of work life and general
health, socio-economic status and quality
of work life, and also general health
and socio-economic status, was found.
Key words: Quality
of Work Life (QWL), socio-economic status,
general health, faculty employees.
|
Nowadays organizations are considered as living
creatures with an identity that is independent
of their members (1), and by this new identity,
they can affect the behavior of their employees.
This personality and identity can be organizationally
healthy or ill (2). Miles introduced the notion
of “organizational health” in 1969.
In his view, organizational health refers to
the durability and persistence of an organization
in its environment and adaptability to it, and
also developing its own ability to be more adaptable
to it (3). Wrong choice, misuse of skills, and
lack of proper atmosphere for allowing creativity
to flourish can endanger the health and promotion
of the organization. When a position or office
is proposed to the employees that is not commensurate
with their dignity, it can lead to disobedience,
absence from work, delays, and resignation.
In an organization, if communication at all
levels is not multilaterally and openly established,
and full confidence does not exist between different
parts, misunderstanding and disharmony will
be created. When goals are not clear, they become
vague, and as the result, the employees do not
make a concerted effort to achieve the goals(4).
Recently the human factor has been considered
as the most important and sensitive organizational
element, and most of the new theories of organization
and management have referred to this sensitive
factor (5). One of the most important parameters
affecting the performance of human resources
is the role of individual health in improving
the economy of a country. Therefore, any kind
of planning or investment in human resources
that leads to protect and promote the health
of employees, can eventually lead to increased
efficiency and return on investment (ROI) (6).
Nowadays the notion of Quality of Work life
has turned into a major social issue all around
the world, while in the past the emphasis was
only on personal life. From the 1970s onward,
improving the employees’ quality of work
life has been considered as one of the most
important issues in many organizations, including
health care organizations (7). Due to the inevitability
of some of the stress factors in health care
organizations and the need to prevent psychological
stress effects, one of the duties of managers
in these organizations is taking some measures
and actions to improve the quality of work life,
and teaching coping techniques (8). Although
there is no formal definition of quality of
work life, however, Walton’s theory has
offered the most comprehensive components of
quality of work life plan (9). He has offered
the main components of quality of work life
in four dimensions that are as follows: meaningfulness
of work; organizational and social fit of work;
provocativeness, richness, and fruitfulness
of work; and security, developing skills, and
continuous learning in work (10).
Quality of work life programs deal with various
objective and subjective areas of employees’
issues. Quality of work life is a process by
which the organization’s members can participate
in making decisions that generally affect their
job and particularly their work environment;
in doing so, they can use open and appropriate
communication ways that have been designed for
this purpose. As a result, their work-related
stress will diminish and employees’ satisfaction
will increase. An organization that pays attention
to its employees’ quality of work life
will benefit from having a competent workforce,
the signs of which are willingness to cooperate
with the management and improvement in the performance
of the workforce (11).
General health is a subset of the health system
and is defined as a set of important social
activities and measures that are based primarily
on prevention strategies (12). One of the characteristics
of a healthy organization is that the physical
and psychological health of the employees are
as important and interesting as production and
productivity for its managers (13). In recent
decades various studies have been conducted
on the relationship between work and stress
and its consequences for health care workers.
In these studies, some topics such as productivity,
occupational accidents, absenteeism, and increase
in physical and mental damage in various occupational
groups have been scrutinized (14). The profession
of the people is one of the main causes of stress
in their life. There is more stress in professions
in which human contact is important (15). Socio-economic
determinants of health such as level of income,
education, job, nutrition, and social class
are far more important in catching diseases
than the biological factors, and they play an
important role in human health (16). In the
social hierarchy, people take different positions
based on their occupational status and level
of education and income, and the position of
the people in this system is defined by their
socio-economic status. Although occupation and
level of income and education all determine
the position of an individual in the social
hierarchy, and these factors are generally not
separate from each other, they should be individually
studied in order to realize their role in health.
Level of education makes differences in terms
of having access to information and level of
expertise to take advantage of knowledge, while
occupation entails differences in having access
to scarce material goods. Occupational status
includes both of these aspects, and also includes
benefits of working in certain occupations such
as dignity, privilege, and technical and social
skills and power (17).
The present age organizations have a strategic
approach to human resources and consider it
as a smart and valuable asset, and desire to
further improve the quality of life and job
satisfaction of their employees (18). Workplace
health and psychological health are created
by improving quality of life indexes, and it
is necessary to pay attention to this issue
in all organizations in order to prevent job
burnout and low efficiency. Measuring the understanding
and sense of people about their own health in
order to assess the status quo, investigating
the efficacy of health interventions and health
care, and implementing appropriate health services
are of crucial importance (19). Socio-economic
status is an important factor that affects the
possibility of taking advantage of medical services,
while the wealthy social groups, which in every
respect are better equipped than the disadvantaged
groups, can sooner and better convert
their need to demand, and hence, take more advantage
(20). A survey of 17,000 employees in England
showed that occupation rank itself plays a more
important role in health than some risk factors
combined, such as smoking and high blood pressure
and cholesterol. Since healthy human is the axis
of sustainable development, and also modern societies
call for providing a proper environment for production
and having the required speed to achieve comprehensive
development, it is clearly the responsibility
of health practitioners and researchers to investigate
and explain all the social factors influencing
health, and then give feedback to the macro policy-makers
in the form of scientific and practical information.
In this way, they can help a great deal in sustainable
development (21).
The importance of socio-economic variables
such as level of education, income, and occupational
status, and their impact on physical and psychological
health of the people, is clear for health experts
and policy-makers. It has been suggested in
many studies that increase in life expectancy
and improvement in the other health indexes
are not merely because of medical progress,
but in many cases are due to the improvement
in socio-economic indexes (22).
Global data show that environment, socio-economic
status, housing, job security, access to health
facilities, and human behavior are all crucial
factors in securing or weakening health (23).
Researches in many countries show extensive
inequalities and differences in health conditions
of various socio-economic, racial, ethnic, and
geographical groups in society. This is indicative
of the crucial impact of various factors on
health that include reducing social exclusion,
alleviating educational shortcomings, reducing
insecurity and unemployment, and improving housing
standards (24). Studies on the relationship
between health and socio-economic status of
a population have originally started from England.
Gradually this type of research was of interest
to researchers in other countries and useful
data was collected in this field, all of which
show that individuals and families who are in
lower social groups, in comparison to higher
and richer social groups, experience more and
premature death, and diseases and defects are
more common in this group; this inequality can
be seen in all European countries, and is an
undeniable fact that needs more attention (25).
To this aim, this research has been conducted
to determine the relationship between socio-economic
status and general health, and show the consequences
of disease that affects the quality of work
life of TUMS’s employees.
This study is of descriptive-analytical type
that has been conducted by cross-sectional method
in faculties of TUMS in 2015, and the population
under study included all the 1,238 non-academic
employees of TUMS. The inclusion criterion for
the study was being a non-academic employee
in TUMS; data collection was conducted in 10
out of 11 faculties of TUMS, and one faculty
was excluded from the study due to lack of cooperation.
Quality of Work life (QWL) questionnaire was
used to collect the required data. This questionnaire
was based on Walton’s components, including
fair and adequate payment (questions 1 to 5),
safe and healthy working environment (questions
6 to 8), providing growth opportunities and
continuous security (questions 9 to 11), having
respect for the laws in the organization (questions
12 to 17), social dependence of work life (questions
18 to 20), the overall atmosphere of life (questions
21 to 25), social integrity and solidarity (questions
26 to 29), and developing human capabilities
(questions 30 to 32). This questionnaire has
been conducted by many researchers and contains
32 items, and is based on a Likert scale from
very low (1 point) to very high (5 points).
Walton showed the reliability coefficient of
the questionnaire to be 0.88 (26). Also in 2006
Rahimi reported the reliability coefficient
of the test to be 0.85 (27). Furthermore, in
this study, the Socio-economic Status (SES)
questionnaire is implemented, which takes four
components of income, economic class, education,
and housing into account, and generally consists
of 6 demographic questions and 5 key questions.
The criterion scaling of questions in this questionnaire
has 5 options and responses are graded on a
continuum, from very low (1) to very high (5).
Eslami et al. (28), by asking 12 sports experts,
confirmed the face and content validity of this
questionnaire. Also by applying Cronbach’s
alpha test, the reliability of the questionnaire
was calculated as 0.83. General health data
were collected by Goldberg and Hillier 28-Item
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) (1979).
It has 4 subscales and each subscale contains
7 questions. These subscales include somatic
symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction
and severe depression. Of the 28 items of the
questionnaire, questions 1 to 7 are about somatic
symptoms, questions 8 to 14 ask about anxiety
and insomnia, questions 15 to 21 assess social
dysfunction, and finally, questions 22 to 28
are related to severe depression (29, 30).
In standardization of GHQ-28 questionnaire
in Iran, Houman (1997) implemented Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for the subscales to assess
the internal consistency, and reported them
to be 0.85, 0.87, 0.79, and 0.91, respectively.
For the overall score, that demonstrates general
health, he reported 0.85. Goldberg and Blackwell
(1972), by using a clinical interview checklist
for 200 surgery patients in England, concluded
that more than 90% of the sample was correctly
classified by the questionnaire as sick or healthy.
Moreover, they reported the correlation coefficient
between the scores of GHQ-28 questionnaire and
the result of clinical evaluation of the results
to be 0.80. Also they reported sensitivity and
specificity as 0.84 and 0.82, respectively.
In order to assess the socio-economic status,
the Socio-economic Status (SES) Questionnaire
(Ghodratnama, 2013) was generally implemented.
This questionnaire contains 4 components, namely
income, economic class, education, and housing,
and in total contains six demographic questions
and 5 key questions. Criterion scaling in this
questionnaire consisted of five responses, and
the scoring method for each response was from
very
low (1) to very high (5). Eslami et al. (28),
by asking 12 sports experts, confirmed the face
and content validity of this questionnaire.
Also by applying Cronbach’s alpha test,
the reliability of the questionnaire was calculated
as 0.83 (26). Thus, the collected data were
recorded by SPSS version 18 software and then
underwent statistical analysis. By using common
methods in descriptive-analytical statistics,
the results were demonstrated in the forms of
tables, diagrams, etc.
The
results
demonstrated
that
the
frequency
of
socio-economic
status
of
the
studied
employees
were
179
for
low
status
(58.3%),
109
for
medium
status
(35.5%),
and
19
for
high
status
(6.2%).
Table
1:
Socio-economic
Status
The
results
demonstrated
that
the
frequency
of
QWL
of
studied
employees
were
10
for
low
status
(3.3%),
108
for
medium
status
(35.6%),
and
185
for
high
status
(61.1%).
Table
2:
Frequency
and
percentage
of
Quality
of
Work
life
(QWL)
status
The
results
demonstrated
that
the
mean
and
standard
deviation
of
dimensions
of
quality
of
work
life
were
17.09
and
3.65
for
fair
and
adequate
payment,
8.44
and
2.95
for
safe
and
healthy
working
environment,
9.62
and
2.61
for
providing
growth
opportunities
and
continuous
security,
19.76
and
6.39
for
having
respect
for
the
laws
of
the
organization,
9.12
and
4.30
for
social
dependence
of
work
life,
15.41
and
5.04
for
the
overall
atmosphere
of
life,
12.84
and
2.49
for
social
integrity
and
solidarity,
and
9.08
and
2.83
for
developing
human
capabilities.
Table
3:
Status
of
QWL’s
dimensions
The
results
demonstrated
that
in
the
somatic
dimension
of
employee’s
general
health,
135
persons
were
at
very
low
level
(43.4%),
120
persons
were
at
slight
level
(38.6%),
43
persons
were
at
medium
level
(13.8%),
and
13
persons
were
at
severe
level
(4.2%).
In
anxiety
dimension,
108
persons
were
at
very
low
level
(35.3%),
125
persons
were
at
slight
level
(40.8%),
60
persons
at
medium
level
(19.6),
and
13
persons
at
severe
level
(4.2%).
In
social
dimension,101
persons
were
at
very
low
level
(32.5%),
171
persons
at
slight
level
(55.0%),
34
persons
at
medium
level
(10.9%),
and
5
persons
at
severe
level
(1.6%).
In
depression
dimension,
260
persons
were
at
very
low
level
(83.6%),
40
persons
at
slight
level
(12.9%),
7
persons
at
medium
level
(2.3%),
and
4
persons
at
severe
level
(1.3%).
In
total,
the
number
of
employees
at
very
low,
slight,
medium,
and
severe
levels
were
129
(41.5%),
138
(44.4%),
41
(13.2%),
and
3
(1.0%),
respectively.
Click
here
for
Table
4:
Status
of
general
health
and
its
dimensions
The
results
of
the
test
show
that
among
the
employees
that
in
terms
of
quality
of
work
life
those
who
were
at
a
low
level,
5
persons
(50%)
had
slight
general
health.
Also
those
of
the
employees
that
had
medium
quality
of
work
life,
53
persons
(49.5%)
were
at
very
low
level
of
general
health.
82
persons
(44.3%)
of
the
employees
that
experienced
a
high
level
quality
of
work
life,
had
slight
general
health.
The
results
of
Fisher
Test
demonstrated
that
there
is
no
significant
relationship
between
quality
of
work
life
and
general
health
(p=0.211).
Click
here
for
Table
5:
Quality
of
work
life
status
in
terms
of
general
health
The
results
of
the
test
demonstrate
that
among
the
employees
in
terms
of
socio-economic
status
those
who
were
at
a
low
level,
5
persons
(50%)
had
low
quality
of
life.
Of
those
employees
who
had
a
medium
socio-economic
status,
59
persons
(55.1%)
had
low
quality
of
life.
Also,
106
persons
(59.2%)
of
the
employees
with
high
socio-economic
status,
had
low
quality
of
work
life.
The
results
of
Chi-squared
test
show
that
there
is
no
significant
relationship
between
socio-economic
status
and
quality
of
work
life
(p=0.106).
Table
6:
QWL’s
Status
in
terms
of
socio-economic
status
 The
results
of
the
test
show
that
among
the
employees
with
a
very
low
level
of
general
health,
71
persons
(55.9%)
had
high
quality
of
work
life,
while
among
the
employees
with
slight
general
health,
82
persons
(62.1%)
had
high
quality
of
work
life.
Also
among
the
employees
with
a
medium
general
health,
30
persons
(75.0%)
had
high
quality
of
work
life,
and
among
the
employees
with
severe
general
health,
3
persons
(66.7%)
had
high
quality
of
life.
The
results
of
Fisher
test
show
that
there
is
no
significant
relationship
between
general
health
and
quality
of
work
life
(p=0.211).
Click
here
for
Table
7:
General
health
in
terms
of
quality
of
work
life
The
results
of
the
test
show
that
among
the
employees
with
a
very
low
level
of
general
health,
69
persons
(54.8%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status,
and
among
the
employees
with
a
slight
level
of
general
health,
78
persons
(58.2%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status.
Also
among
the
employees
with
a
medium
level
of
general
health,
29
persons
(70.7%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status,
and
among
the
employees
with
severe
general
health,
2
persons
(66.7%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status.
The
results
of
Fisher
test
show
that
there
is
no
significant
relationship
between
general
health
and
socio-economic
status
(p=0.071).
Click
here
for
Table
8:
General
health
in
terms
of
socio-economic
status
|
DISCUSSION
AND
CONCLUSION
|
The
results
of
the
study
show
that
the
frequency
of
socio-economic
status
of
the
employees
under
study
were
179
(53.3%)
for
low
level,
109
(35.5%)
for
medium
level,
and
199
(6.2%)
for
high
level.
Also
the
frequency
of
employees
quality
of
work
life
were
10
(3.3%)
for
low
level,
108
(35.6
%)
for
medium
level,
and
185
(61.1%)
for
high
level.
The
results
also
demonstrated
that
the
mean
and
standard
deviation
of
QWL’s
dimensions
respectively
are
as
follows:
17.09
and
3.65
for
fair
and
adequate
payment,
8.44
and
2.95
for
safe
and
healthy
working
environment,
9.62
and
2.61
for
providing
growth
opportunities
and
continuous
security,
19.76
and
6.39
for
having
respect
for
the
laws
in
the
organization,
9.12
and
4.30
for
social
dependence
of
work
life,
15.41
and
5.04
for
the
overall
atmosphere
of
life,
12.84
and
3.49
for
social
integrity
and
solidarity,
and
9.08
and
2.83
for
developing
human
capabilities.
In
the
physical
dimension
of
employees’
general
health,
135
persons
(43.4%)
are
at
very
low,
120
persons
(36.6%)
at
slight,
43
persons
(13.8%)
at
medium,
and
13
persons
(4.2%)
at
severe
level.
On
the
anxiety
dimension,
108
persons
(35.3%)
are
at
very
low,
125
persons
(40.8%)
at
slight,
60
persons
(19.6%)
at
medium,
and
13
persons
(4.2%)
at
severe
level.
On
the
social
dimension,
101
persons
(32.5%)
are
at
very
low,
171
persons
(55%)
at
slight
level,
34
persons
(10.9%)
at
medium,
and
5
persons
(1.6%)
at
severe
level.
On
the
depression
dimension,
206
persons
(83.6%)
are
at
very
low
level,
40
persons
(12.9%)
at
slight,
7
persons
(2.3%)
at
medium,
and
4
persons
(1.3%)
at
severe
level.
In
total,
the
number
of
employees
at
very
low,
slight,
medium,
and
severe
levels
are
129
(45.5%),
138
(44.4%),
41
(13.2%),
and
3
(1%),
respectively.
The
results
show
that
of
those
among
the
employees
who
were
at
a
very
low
level
of
general
health,
69
persons
(54.8%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status.
Among
the
employees
who
had
slight
general
health,
78
persons
(58.2%)
were
at
a
low
socio-economic
status.
In
the
group
with
medium
general
health,
29
persons
(70.7%)
had
a
low
socio-economic
status,
and
in
the
group
with
a
severe
level
of
general
health,
2
persons
(66.7%)
had
a
low
level
of
socio-economic
status.
The
results
of
Fisher
test
show
that
there
is
no
significant
relationship
between
general
health
and
socio-economic
status
(p=0.071).
In
a
study
entitled
“The
relationship
between
socio-economic
status
and
general
health
in
single
mothers”,
Shahram
Mami,
et
al
(2014)
investigated
the
most
important
factors
that
have
an
influence
on
the
general
health
of
single
mothers.
This
study
was
of
cross-sectional-analytical
type,
the
population
under
study
was
all
the
women
covered
by
the
State
Welfare
Organization
of
Iran-Ilam
Branch,
and
the
sample
size
was
750
people.
The
data
was
collected
by
using
Socio-economic
Status
(SES)
questionnaire
and
GHQ-28,
and
were
recorded
by
SPSS
version
16
software
and
then
underwent
various
statistical
analyses
such
as
mean,
standard
deviation,
and
logistic
regression
analysis.
The
mean
and
standard
deviation
of
the
age
of
participants
were
19.88
and
±
53.3,
respectively.
According
to
the
results
of
this
study,
79.8%
of
the
participating
women
did
not
have
good
general
health.
In
the
logistic
regression
analysis,
the
most
important
predictors
of
general
health
for
single
mothers
were
age
(p=0.004),
extending
the
time
of
coverage
(0.001),
and
having
a
diagnosed
illness
(p=0.001).
Moreover,
low
literacy,
undesirable
economic
status,
and
having
chronic
illnesses
were
the
most
important
factors
influencing
the
general
health
of
single
mothers.
Therefore,
paying
more
attention
to
this
stratum
of
society,
which
in
terms
of
general
health
is
at
a
lower
level
than
the
other
strata,
requires
planning
and
collective
effort
(24).
In
his
study
entitled
“Characteristics
of
economy,
society,
demography,
and
mental
health
in
old
age”,
Seifzadeh
has
implemented
a
survey
method
and
questionnaire.
The
statistical
population
of
the
study
was
all
the
residents
of
Azarshahr
65
years
old
or
more.
In
this
study,
stratified
random
sampling
method
(proportional)
was
implemented,
and
the
sample
size
consisted
of
312
persons.
The
results
show
that:
1-
Men’s
mental
health
was
more
than
that
of
women.
2-
Mental
health
of
participants
who
live
with
their
spouse
is
more
than
those
who
have
lost
their
spouse.
3-
With
aging,
the
health
of
the
elderly
deteriorates.
4-
By
increasing
social
support,
the
health
of
the
elderly
increases,
and
those
of
the
elderly
with
higher
social
support,
have
better
mental
health
than
their
peers
with
less
social
support.
5-
There
is
a
one-to-one
relationship
between
socio-economic
status
and
mental
health,
so
that
the
elderly
with
a
high
socio-economic
status
are
more
healthy
than
other
elderly.
(25)
Javadi,
et
al
(2011)
in
a
study
entitled
“Economic
burden
and
health
costs
of
chronic
diseases
in
Iran
and
the
World”,
investigated
the
economic
burden
and
health
costs
of
this
world
crisis
and
the
challenges
ahead,
and
proposed
a
number
of
prevention
and
control
strategies.
This
study
was
a
review
of
library
resources
and
digital
and
printed
literature
from
different
scientific
journals,
and
searching
in
valid
websites
such
as
Pubmed,
SID,
ISI,
etc.
Noncontagious
diseases
cause
35
million
deaths
annually,
and
are
considered
as
a
major
obstacle
to
development
in
countries.
These
diseases
have
had
extremely
bad
effects
on
the
poor
and
vulnerable
groups
of
the
society,
and
have
left
many
people
in
poverty
(32).
In
a
study
entitled
“Predicting
quality
of
life
based
on
general
health,
social
support,
and
self-efficacy
in
cardiovascular
patients
of
Yasouj
in
2014”,
Moghadam
et
al
studied
70
cardiovascular
patients
going
to
medical
centers
and
clinics
of
Yasouj.
These
patients
were
selected
by
convenience
and
purposive
sampling
methods.
In
this
study,
there
was
a
significant
relationship
between
quality
of
life,
self-efficacy,
general
health,
and
social
support
(p<0.001).
The
results
of
the
regression
analysis
show
that
all
the
predictor
variables
can
predict
76%
of
the
changes
in
the
criterion
variable
(quality
of
life);
furthermore,
the
results
of
stepwise
regression
analysis
show
that
each
one
of
the
variables
of
general
health,
self-efficacy,
and
social
support
can
respectively
predict
69%,
4%,
and
3%
changes
in
criterion
variable.
By
developing
supportive
social
networks
and
educating
self-efficacy
skills,
we
can
improve
general
health
and
quality
of
life
of
cardiovascular
patients
(33).
Rezghi
Shirsavar
et
al
conducted
an
applied
research
entitled
“A
survey
of
the
relationship
between
occupational
stress,
general
health,
organizational
intelligence,
and
job
satisfaction
with
the
performance
of
employees
of
Islamic
Azad
University
–
Shahre
Qods
Branch”.
The
statistical
population
of
this
study
consisted
of
all
the
employees
of
Islamic
Azad
University
–
Shahre
Qods
Branch
that
were
in
total
222
persons,
and
based
on
Morgan
Table,
144
persons
were
selected
as
sample.
In
this
study,
GHQ-28
questionnaire,
which
explains
people’s
cognitive,
emotional,
and
behavioral
performance,
was
used.
The
Standard
12-item
Job
Descriptive
Index
(JDI)
questionnaire
was
used
for
investigating
components
of
job
satisfaction,
and
Alireza
Faghihi’s
questionnaire
(2009),
which
was
reduced
to
20
items,
was
used
for
investigating
components
of
organizational
intelligence.
The
results
of
this
study
show
that
the
variables
under
study,
namely
general
health,
job
satisfaction,
and
organizational
intelligence
have
positive
impact
on
the
performance
of
the
employees
of
Islamic
Azad
University
–
Shahre
Qods
Branch,
but
considering
the
provided
data,
there
was
a
negative
impact
between
occupational
stress
and
performance
(meaning
the
more
occupational
stress,
the
less
score
on
performance).
Generally,
job
satisfaction
had
the
highest
level
of
impact.
Considering
the
regression
results,
and
in
order
to
get
the
highest
score
on
performance,
it
is
suggested
to
managers
of
Islamic
Azad
University
–
Shahre
Qods
Branch
to
enhance
the
job
satisfaction
of
the
employees
and
at
the
same
time
reduce
their
occupational
stress.
(34)
Bakhshayesh
in
a
study
entitled
“Investigating
the
relation
between
general
health
and
personality
types
and
job
satisfaction
of
employees
working
in
Yazd
Health
Center”,
which
investigated
the
relation
between
general
health
and
personality
types
and
job
satisfaction
of
employees,
71
of
the
21
to
56-year-old
male
and
female
employees
working
in
Yazd
Health
Center
were
selected
by
consensus
sampling
method
and
studied
by
the
use
of
GHQ-28
questionnaire,
Standard
12-item
Job
Descriptive
Index
(JDI)
questionnaire,
and
NEO
Five-Factor
Personality
Inventory.
The
method
of
study
was
descriptive-correlational,
and
the
data
was
analyzed
by
statistical
tests
of
Pearson
correlation
coefficient,
t-test,
ANOVA,
and
stepwise
regression.
The
results
of
the
study
showed
that
general
health
has
a
direct
relationship
with
neurotic
personality
type
(r=0.542),
and
has
an
inverse
relationship
to
extroversion
and
favorability
(r=
-0.34
and
r=
-0.38,
respectively),
and
has
no
relationship
to
flexibility
and
responsibility.
There
was
an
inverse
relationship
between
general
health
and
three
components
of
job
satisfaction
(nature
of
work,
job
promotion,
salary
and
total
score
of
job
satisfaction),
and
had
no
relationship
to
satisfaction
of
coworkers
and
supervisors.
Low
general
health
was
consistent
with
neurotic
personality
type,
and
high
general
health
was
related
to
extrovert
personality
type
and
favorability.
Low
general
health
was
consistent
with
low
job
satisfaction,
and
vice
versa.
In
this
study,
in
terms
of
personality
types
and
job
satisfaction,
there
was
only
a
correlation
(p=0.01)
between
satisfaction
of
the
nature
of
work
and
extroversion.
Therefore,
we
can
conclude
that
any
change
in
personality
types
or
with
any
decrease
or
increase
in
general
health,
the
level
of
job
satisfaction
changes
(35).
The
results
of
this
study
show
that
age,
sex,
and
academic
degree
have
a
direct
relationship
with
socio-economic
status.
In
addition,
it
was
noticed
that
age
and
academic
degree
have
a
positive
relationship
with
general
health,
however,
age,
sex,
and
academic
degree
did
not
have
a
positive
relationship
to
quality
of
work
life.
Among
the
various
dimensions
of
quality
of
work
life,
socio-economic
status
had
a
significant
relationship
with
fair
and
adequate
payment,
safe
and
healthy
working
environment,
providing
growth
opportunities
and
continuous
security,
and
developing
human
capabilities.
As
a
result,
considering
the
importance
of
quality
of
work
life
in
socio-economic
status,
it
is
proposed
that
the
following
measures
be
taken
into
account:
appropriateness
of
salary
to
the
economic
factors
like
inflation;
demand
and
supply
in
fair
and
adequate
payment;
paying
more
attention
to
the
physical
conditions
of
workplace,
e.g.
light,
cooling
and
heating
facilities
to
prepare
a
secure
and
healthy
workplace;
preparing
some
possibilities
for
the
employees
so
that
they
can
further
develop
their
personal
talents
and
achieve
the
opportunities
for
making
progress
in
their
specialized
field
by
encouraging
them
to
be
creative
and
innovative
that
leads
to
the
promotion
of
the
organization;
and
providing
continuous
security
and
growth
opportunities
for
the
employees,
allowing
them
to
take
initiatives,
and
provide
any
information
or
skill
that
they
need
in
the
workplace
to
develop
their
human
capabilities.In
investigating
the
relationship
between
general
health
and
quality
of
work
life,
there
was
a
significant
relationship
between
physical
and
anxiety
dimensions
of
general
health
and
quality
of
work
life.
Therefore,
by
improving
any
component
of
general
health,
a
positive
impact
on
the
quality
of
work
life
will
be
achieved.
On
the
other
hand,
in
this
study,
there
was
no
significant
relationship
between
quality
of
work
life
and
general
health,
socio-economic
status
and
quality
of
work
life,
and
general
health
and
socio-economic
status.
1)
Seyed
Javadian
R.
The
principle
of
organization
and
Management.
Tehran:
Negah
Danesh;
2005.
[Persian].
2)
Saatchi
M.
Work
psychology:
Application
of
psychology
at
work,
organization
and
management.
Tehran:
Virayesh;
2004.
[Persian].
3)
Jahed
H.
organizational
health.
Tadbir
training
scientific
monthly
2005;
(159):
10-16.
[Persian].
4)
Daft
R.
Organization
Theory
&
design.
(Translate
by:
Parsayan
A,
A’arabi
M).
6th
ed.
Tehran:
cultural
Research
Bureau;
2004.
[Persian].
5)
Muhammad
Hashem
breakthrough.
Improvement
of
managerial
capacity
and
incentives
for
employees
of
institutions
and
organizations.
Tehran:
Office
of
Management
and
Planning,
1374.
6)
Spinaci
S,
Korat
L,
Keravel
V.
Tough
choices
investment
in
health
for
development.
7)
Khaghanizadr
M,
Ebadi
A,
Siratinayer
M,
Rahmani
M.
[The
Study
of
Relationship
between
job
stress
and
quality
of
work
life
of
nurses
in
military
hospital].
Mil
Med
2008;
10
(3);
175-84.Persian.
8)
McVicar
A.
Workplace
stress
in
nursing:
a
literature
review.
J
Adv
Nurs.2003;
44(6):633-42.
9)
Organization
WH.
The
World
health
report:
2001:
Mental
health:
new
understanding,
new
hope.2001.
10)
Conklin
MH,
Desselle
SP.
Snapshot
of
pharmacy
faculty
quality
of
work
life
and
productivity.
Journal
of
Pharmacy
Teaching.2007:14(1):53-77.
11)
Ballou
B,
Norman
H,
Goodwin
NH.
Quality
of
work
life.
Strategic
Finance.2007:89(4):40-51.
12)
Davari
SA.
Health
and
its
determinants.
Tehran,
contemporary
works,
2007:
25.
13)
Saatchi
M.
Applied
Psychology
for
Managers
in
homes,
schools
and
organizations.
1nd
ed.
Tehran:editing,
1995:
5-
51.
14)
Stellman
JM,
McCann
M,
Warshaw
L,
et
al.
Encyclopaedia
of
occupational
health
and
safety.
4th
ed.
Geneva:
International
Labour
Office.
34.2-34.28.
1998.
15)
BAHRI
BN,
Moghiman
M,
Atarbashi
M,
Garche
M.
The
survey
of
relationship
between
job
burnout
and
health
status
of
midwives
and
nurses.
2003.
16)
Motlaq
M,
Oliaee
Manesh
A,
Beheshtian
M.
Health
and
its
social
determinants.
2nd
ed.Tehran:
Moafaq
Press;
2007.
42
[In
Persian].
17)
Lahelma
E,
Kivela
K,
Roos
E,
Tuominen
T,
Dahl
E,
Diderichsen
F,et
al.
Analysing
changes
of
health
inequalities
in
the
Nordic
welfare
states.
Social
Science
of
Medicine
2002;
55:
609-25.
18)
Bazaz
Jazayeri
SA,
Pardakhtchi
MH.
[Developing
a
model
for
the
assessment
of
quality
of
work
life
in
organizations].
Iranian
Journal
of
Management
Sciences
2007;
2(5):123-51.
19)
Nejat
S,
Montazeri
A,
Holakoie
K,Mohamad
K,Majdzadeh
SR.
Quality
of
Life
of
Tehran’s
population
by
Whoqol-Bref
questionnaire
in
2005.Hakim
2007;
10(3):
1-8.
20)
Marmot
M,
Wilkinson
R.
Social
determinants
of
health.
Translated
by:
Montazeri
A.
1st
ed.
Publication
of
Jahad;
2008.
1-30.
21)
http://www.unicef.org/sowc08/profiles/child_survival.php.
Last
accessed
at
2011-03-14.
22)
Ali
Ali
Akbar;
Poverty
and
its
impact
on
health,
experiences
and
Western
experiences;
Publishing
Co.
Jihad
Research
and
Training;
Autumn
1380
23)
Davoudi
Saeed;
Health
and
its
determinants;
Ministry
of
Health
and
Medical
Education
Publications;
1386.
24)
Virme,
G.
(2001).
“Human
behaviour
;
improving
performance
at
work”.
New
York
:
Prentice-Hall,
inc.
25)
Rahimi,
Reza.
(1385).
“Surveying
the
quality
of
work
life
of
faculty
members
of
Isfahan
University”,
End
of
Master’s
Degree
in
Management
Education,
Isfahan
University.
26)
Islamic,
Ayoub,
Mahmoudi,
Ahmad,
Khbiri,
Mohammad,
Najafian
Razavi,
Seyyed
Mehdi
(2013).
Socioeconomic
status
(ESE)
in
the
motivation
of
citizen
participation
in
public
sports
_
recreation.
Journal
of
Applied
Research
in
Sport
Management,
2
(3),
pp.
89-104.
27)
Fathi
Ashtiani,
Ali.
Psychological
tests
-
Personality
assessment
and
mental
health.
Besat
Publishing.
1388
28)
Saatchi.
Mahmoud
Kamkari
Kambiz,
Askariyan.
Mahnaz
Psychological
tests.
Publish
edited.
1389
29)
Wisani,
Yousef,
Shahbazi,
Nasrin,
Mami,
Naderi,
et
al.
Relationship
between
socioeconomic
status
and
general
health
in
female
headed
households.
Scientific
Journal
of
Ilam
University
of
Medical
Sciences.
2015;
23
(1):
56-62.
30)
A.
Ses
Economic,
social,
demographic
and
psychological
well-being
in
old
age,
Azarshahr
city.
31)
Karimi
S.,
Javadi
M.,
Jafarzadeh
F.
Economic
burden
and
health
costs
from
chronic
diseases
in
Iran
and
the
world.
Health
Information
Management.
1390;
7
(8):
984-96.
32)
Behnam
Moghadam
M,
Behnam
Moghadam
A,
Yarian
S,
Hosseini
S,
Mohammad
Hosseini
S.
Predicting
the
Quality
of
Life
Based
on
Public
Health,
Social
Support
and
Self
Efficacy
in
Cardiovascular
Patients.
Armaghane
danesh.
2014;
19
(7)
:633-642.
33)
Hadi
Ras,
Masoud
S.,
Mohsen
A.
Investigating
the
Relationship
between
Job
Pressure,
General
Health,
Organizational
Intelligence
and
Job
Satisfaction
with
the
Performance
of
Employees
of
Islamic
Azad
University
of
Qods.
34)
Alireza
B.
The
Relationship
between
General
Health
and
Personality
Types
and
Job
Satisfaction
among
Employees
of
Health
Center
in
Yazd.
|
